|
But individuals are brought into being by the union of the
Reason-Principles of the parents, male and female: this seems to
do away with a definite Reason-Principle for each of the
offspring: one of the parents- the male let us say- is the
source; and the offspring is determined not by Reason-Principles
differing from child to child but by one only, the father's or
that of the father's father.
No: a distinct Reason-Principle may be the determinant for the
child since the parent contains all: they would become effective
at different times.
And so of the differences among children of the same parents: it
is a matter of varying dominance: either the offspring- whether
it so appears or not- has been mainly determined by, now, the
male, now, the female or, while each principle has given itself
entire and lies there within, yet it effectively moulds one
portion of the bodily substance rather than another.
And how [by the theory of a divine archetype of each individual]
are the differences caused by place to be explained?
Is the differentiating element to be found in the varying
resistance of the material of the body?
No: if this were so, all men with the exception of one only would
be untrue to nature.
Difference everywhere is a good, and so there must be differing
archetypes, though only to evil could be attribute any power in
Matter to thwart nature by overmastering the perfect
Reason-Principles, hidden but given, all.
Still, admitting the diversity of the Reason-principles, why need
there by as many as there are men born in each Period, once it is
granted that different beings may take external manifestation
under the presence of the same principles?
Under the presence of all; agreed: but with the dominance of the
very same? That is still open to question.
May we not take it that there may be identical reproduction from
one Period to another but not in the same Period?
|
|